Spotlight: Investigative journalism body says U.S. drones kill hundreds of innocent civilians

An investigative journalism body and other human rights groups believe U.S. drones are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia.

Earlier this month, the U.S. government confirmed for the first time civilian casualties caused by U.S. drone strikes, saying between 64 and 116 "non-combatants" in 473 counter-terrorism strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya had been killed between January 2009 and the end of 2015.

But research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) based at City University London claims that the real civilian death toll is far higher than the figures released by President Barrack Obama's administration.

Jack Serle, a British investigative journalist and researcher at the TBIJ, said this is a fraction of the 380 to 801 civilian casualties range recorded by the bureau from reports by local and international journalists, NGO investigators, leaked government documents, and other sources.

Drones have been used hundreds of times in the four countries to target terrorists and their leaders, according to the TBIJ.

"The nature of civilian casualties as a result of the military and paramilitary responses to terror mean that civilians are going to die, and nobody is saying otherwise," Serle said in a recent interview with Xinhua.

"Since becoming president in 2009, Barack Obama has significantly extended the use of drones in the War on Terror. Operating outside declared battlefields, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, this air war has been largely fought in Pakistan and Yemen," Serle said.

So far the bureau has identified 213 civilians killed in Pakistan by drones in Obama's presidency, he noted. He attributed the disparity in the numbers of civilian casualties released by the bureau and the U.S. government to their uses of definitions.

"We have been compiling figures for some years, using reports from respected international media organizations," he said.

Serle raised a question about whether the use of drone strikes is legal or not, saying that there are lawyers currently trying to initiate a case against the drone strikes by the United States in Pakistan.

"There was a case brought against Israel over the use of drones against Palestinians. It went as high as the Supreme Court, but the conclusion was that the use of drone strikes had to be considered on a case by case basis," he said.

Jennifer Gibson, from human rights group Reprieve, said that Obama published numbers "that are hundreds lower than even the lowest estimates by independent organizations."

"The only thing those numbers tell us is that this administration simply doesn't know who it has killed," Gibson said.

A White House statement issued on July 1 said that since Obama took office he has been clear that the United States will use force abroad to protect Americans when necessary.

The statement outlined steps "to institutionalize and enhance best practices regarding U.S. counter terrorism operations and other U.S. operations involving the use of force, as well as providing greater transparency and accountability regarding these operations."

In May 2013, Obama issued policy guidance that direct action would be taken only if there is "near certainty" that the terrorist target is present and "near certainty" that non-combatants will not be killed or injured, noting "near certainty" is "the highest standard we can set."

Jamel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, welcomed any disclosure of information about the U.S. government's targeted-killing policies, but adding the government should release more details about every strike.

"The public has a right to know who the government is killing - and if the government doesn't know who it's killing, the public should know that," said Jaffer. Endi